Citation Nr: 1027955
Decision Date: 07/27/10 Archive Date: 08/10/10
DOCKET NO. 08-30 614 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Detroit,
Michigan
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Military Order of the Purple
Heart of the U.S.A.
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Jill Anderson, Law Clerk
INTRODUCTION
The appellant served in the United States Naval Reserves from
February 1977 to February 1979 and from August 1983 to July 2003.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
from a rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Regional Office (RO) in Detroit, Michigan.
The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management
Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if
further action is required.
REMAND
The appellant seeks service connection for a bilateral foot
disorder. After a review of the file, the Board finds that
additional development is necessary. Accordingly, further
appellate consideration will be deferred and the case is REMANDED
for actions as described below.
At the outset, the Board notes that it is possible for an
appellant to receive compensation for an injury that was incurred
during inactive duty training (INACDUTRA). According to
38 U.S.C.A. § 101(24)(c), active naval service includes any
period of INACDUTRA, if the claimant was disabled from an injury
incurred in line of duty.
In this case, her duty status at the time of the foot injury is
not clear, nor is it clear from the record whether she was
located at home or on base when she sustained the injury.
According to her "Abstract of Service and Medical History," she
was stationed in Little Creek, Virginia, for INACDUTRA in August
1992 but this has not been verified. If she was on INACDUTRA and
"in line of duty" when she sustained the injury, she may be
entitled to veteran status and potential compensation.
Therefore, as service personnel records are deemed to be
constructively of record in proceedings before the Board, they
should be obtained, if available, prior to further review of the
claims file. See Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992).
Since it is possible that the appellant may be entitled to
veteran status and compensation, additional development of the
claim is necessary. As indicated by the claims file, she was
examined for ankle problems in 2002, 2005, and 2007. Further,
she has submitted a contemporaneous record of the August 1992
foot injury. Since the evidence indicates a possibility of a
foot disorder incurring in service, a medical examination is
required to adequately adjudicate the claim.
Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions:
1. Obtain relevant VA clinical records from
the Detroit, Michigan, VA Medical Center for
the period from August 2006 to the present.
2. Obtain the appellant's complete Naval
Reserve service personnel records from
February 1977 to February 1979 and from
August 1983 to July 2003.
3. Schedule the appellant for an examination
to determine the etiology of her current
bilateral foot disorder. The claims file
should be made available to and be reviewed
by the examiner in conjunction with the
examination. All necessary tests should be
conducted.
The examiner should conduct a thorough
medical examination and based on the results
of the examination and review of the relevant
medical evidence, provide an opinion as to
the following:
* Is a current foot disorder shown? If a
foot disorder is diagnosed, the examiner
is asked to state the location of the
current foot disorder. Of note, it
appears that the 1992 injury was to the
top of the foot bridge, whereas the
appellant's current complaints are of
the ankle area. It would be useful for
the examiner to describe the location of
any pathology found.
* Assuming a foot disorder is shown, the
examiner is asked to offer an opinion as
to whether it is at least as likely as
not that the current diagnosis was the
result of an August 1992 injury to the
top of the foot.
Any opinion should be accompanied by a clear
rationale consistent with the evidence of
record. If the examiner concludes that there
is insufficient information to provide an
etiologic opinion without result to mere
speculation, the examiner should state
whether the inability to provide a definitive
opinion was due to a need for further
information (with said needed information
identified) or because the limits of medical
knowledge had been exhausted regarding the
etiology of pathology.
4. Upon completion of the above,
readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the
benefit sought remains denied, the appellant
should be furnished an appropriate
supplemental statement of the case and be
afforded an opportunity to respond.
Thereafter, the case should be returned to
the Board for further appellate
consideration, as appropriate.
The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and
argument on the matter the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v.
West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law
requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of
Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate
action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A.
§§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2009).
_________________________________________________
L. HOWELL
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the
nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision
of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R.
§ 20.1100(b) (2009).